Trump Targets the Press in the Pentagon
Booting major news outlets from the Pentagon isn’t about fairness—it’s about silencing critics and replacing them with loyal propagandists. This is a strategic assault on press freedom.
The Trump administration’s decision to evict major news organizations from their Pentagon offices is not just a logistical shuffle—it’s a calculated effort to control the narrative, tilt the playing field toward right-wing media, and undermine the press’s ability to scrutinize government actions. By removing longstanding members of the Pentagon press corps, including The New York Times, NBC News, NPR, and Politico, and replacing them with conservative outlets like Breitbart News and One America News (OAN), the administration is sending a clear message: only friendly coverage will be welcomed in the halls of power.
A Direct Attack on Press Freedom
Throughout his first presidency and this second administration, Trump and his allies made no secret of their disdain for mainstream media, branding journalists as the "enemy of the people." The Pentagon’s move to strip major outlets of their offices is an escalation of this war against the press. It’s one thing to criticize coverage—it’s another to structurally limit journalists’ access to the government.
Government buildings, including the White House and the Pentagon, have long provided office space for major news organizations, recognizing the essential role of the press in holding power to account. While Pentagon officials claim that the displaced outlets will still have access to briefings, the reality is that without a dedicated workspace inside the building, their ability to cultivate sources, track emerging stories, and engage in the day-to-day work of investigative journalism will be significantly hindered.
This decision is not an isolated event. It fits into a broader conservative strategy to delegitimize independent, fact-based journalism while elevating partisan outlets that will amplify right-wing narratives uncritically. This strategy is evident in the ongoing push by conservative think tanks and policy documents, such as Project 2025, which suggests reassessing media access to the White House and considering alternative coordinating bodies instead of the White House Correspondents’ AssociationProject 2025 - Full Doc…. The removal of mainstream journalists from the Pentagon is a step toward that goal.
The Political Stakes
The timing of this decision—just after the confirmation of Trump’s Defense Secretary, Pete Hegseth—is no coincidence. Hegseth, a former Fox News personality, has long been a vocal critic of the mainstream press and a champion of right-wing media. His leadership at the Pentagon will likely bring even more efforts to reshape military communication policies in favor of conservative-friendly coverage.
The justification given by Pentagon officials—that this is part of a “media rotation program” to allow other outlets a turn in the press corps—rings hollow. In reality, it is an excuse to swap out critical voices for compliant ones. This move is not about expanding access; it’s about shifting it to outlets more aligned with Trump’s political agenda.
By giving office space to Breitbart, OAN, and the New York Post, the administration is ensuring that its version of reality—one that downplays military scandals, glorifies American exceptionalism, and pushes pro-Trump narratives—dominates coverage of the Department of Defense.
The Broader Implications
The attack on the press is part of a larger right-wing effort to reshape public discourse. It mirrors broader authoritarian tendencies, where leaders attempt to control the flow of information by marginalizing independent journalism and boosting propaganda outlets. We’ve seen this tactic before, from Hungary’s Viktor Orbán to Russia’s Vladimir Putin—leaders who systematically eroded press freedom to consolidate power.
Furthermore, this move serves a dual purpose: not only does it suppress independent journalism, but it also fuels the conservative grievance machine. Right-wing media will undoubtedly frame any backlash against this decision as further proof that “the liberal media” feels entitled to special privileges, reinforcing the narrative that conservative voices are being silenced.
This tactic aligns with what media analysts have long called “controlling the conversation.” Rather than openly banning the press—a move that would invite legal challenges and public outrage—Trump’s team is playing a more insidious game. They are strategically shifting the media landscape, ensuring that coverage of the military and national security comes primarily from outlets that will parrot their messaging rather than challenge it.
Reframing the Debate
Rather than allowing this move to be framed as a simple reallocation of office space, it must be understood as a deliberate attempt to silence critical journalism. The debate should not be about whether The New York Times or NBC News "deserve" a permanent seat at the Pentagon. The real issue is whether the government should be in the business of determining which news organizations get preferential access—especially when those decisions are clearly motivated by political bias.
While Pentagon officials claim that the displaced outlets will still have access to briefings, the reality is that without a dedicated workspace inside the building, their ability to cultivate sources, track emerging stories, and engage in the day-to-day work of investigative journalism will be significantly hindered.
Progressives should push back by demanding transparency in the process. If this is truly about fairness, then the Pentagon should disclose its criteria for choosing which outlets gain and lose office space and when the new additions can be expected to be cycled out. If this is about giving new outlets access, then why are openly partisan propaganda machines like OAN and Breitbart being prioritized?
Moreover, the response should emphasize the broader implications for democracy. If the government can dictate which journalists get access to military leadership today, what’s to stop it from further restricting press freedoms tomorrow?
Strategies for Pushing Back
Demand Oversight: Congress and press freedom organizations should investigate this decision and demand accountability. Was there political pressure behind it? What role did Hegseth play? Who made the final call?
Support Independent Journalism: Major news organizations should double down on their Pentagon coverage despite losing office space. If the administration expects these outlets to simply scale back their reporting, it should be met with the opposite.
Expose the Propaganda Push: Rather than allowing right-wing media to frame this as a victory against the "liberal elite press," it should be called out for what it is—an effort to create a government-approved media ecosystem.
Mobilize Public Pressure: The public should be made aware that this is not a procedural shuffle but an attack on their right to information. Protests, petitions, and social media campaigns can help keep the pressure on.
The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects the media and news outlets. The First Amendment is a cornerstone of press freedom in the U.S., ensuring that journalism remains independent and able to hold power accountable. It explicitly states:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
The Last Laugh
Trump’s administration has always been obsessed with controlling the narrative. But history tells us that suppressing journalism rarely works in the long run. The harder an administration tries to silence critical voices, the louder they tend to become. If Trump and his allies think they can drown out fact-based reporting by physically removing reporters from the room, they underestimate both the press and the public’s demand for truth.
I always appreciate the resources and action items!